Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
British Online Archives (BOA) presents Talking History, the podcast in which we explore the past from a variety of angles and perspectives. Throughout this podcast series, we talk to historians and specialists working in related fields about their research. Together, we will delve into some of the most significant themes, events, and movements in history.
Intro: Intro music.
Welcome to Talking History with
British Online Archives, the
podcast in which we explore the
past from a variety of angles
and perspectives. British Online
Archives is an academic
publisher and digital repository
of historical source material
based in the UK, and we work
closely with academics, museum
professionals, and heritage
organisations to curate primary
source collections for students
and researchers alike.
Throughout this podcast series,
we will talk to historians and
specialists working in related
fields about their research.
Together, we will delve into
some of the most significant
themes, events, and movements in
history.
Dave: My name is David
Sarsfield, Head of Library Sales
at British Online Archives. In
this episode, I sit down with
Gaynor Johnson, Professor
Emerita in International History
at the University of Kent. She
studied at what is now Bangor
University in North Wales as
both an undergraduate and as a
doctoral student. In a career
spanning more than 30 years, she
has also taught at Bolton
University and the University of
Salford. She has published
widely in the area of 20th
century British Foreign Policy,
the history of government, and
on the origins of the Second
World War. Her most recent work
has taken her into the realm of
gender history. She is also
currently writing the history of
the Foreign Office. Gaynor is a
fellow of the Royal Historical
Society, a member of the peer
review College of the Arts and
Humanities Research Council, and
is the Editor in Chief of two
peer referee journals, The
International History Review and
Diplomacy and Statecraft.
Earlier in 2023, Gaynor and I
explored the evolution of
international diplomacy from the
post First World War period,
including our featured British
Online Archives collection Paris
Peace Conference and Beyond
1919–1939, through to how this
has impacted the way such
diplomacy is conducted today. We
hope you enjoy the discussion.
Today I'm joined by Professor
Gaynor Johnson. Thank you very
much for traveling all this way
over the Pennines.
Gaynor: Oh, you're welcome.
Dave: Very good to have you
today in our Leeds office. And
yeah, we're here to talk about
who you are, your significance
within the field of
international history,
particularly during the 20th
century. I also understand
you're on sabbatical at the
moment?
Gaynor: Yes, I am. I'm very
lucky at the moment. Yes.
Dave: And what, what are up to
during this period, then?
Gaynor: Well, I'm writing a book
on the history of the Foreign
Office and the clerks who worked
there. And their kind of working
conditions. So it's kind of not
a million miles away from the
things that I think we're going
to be talking about today. So
some extension of that.
Dave: So still, a lot of
involvement then, with The
National Archives and, no doubt,
with the Foreign Office files?
Gaynor: Yes, yes, I have
squatters rights there. I sort
of go there on a regular basis.
Yes, definitely.
Dave: That's great. Well, yeah,
as you say, we'll talk about
that a little bit more later on.
But just to start off with,
yeah, if you'd be able to tell
us a bit to begin with, what
attracted you to your field of
study, and why you feel that
it's so significant?
Gaynor: What attracted me to the
field of study? Funnily enough,
I remember when I first started
out, what made me get interested
in, in the international history
the first half of the 20th
century was, I went to a really
bad lecture when I was an
undergraduate, and the lecturer
left all sorts of points hanging
in the air. And most probably
deliberately, I was probably
intended to go away and read up
on them and all that kind of
thing. And one of them was, was
about the origins of the First
World War and the peacemaking
process after it. And I just, I
don't know, I just became
hooked, hooked by it. And the
fact it's so controversial, the
fact that the origins of the
First World War has long been
controversial. But I think
what's also interesting is the
way that the consequences of
that war, particularly things
like the four treaties that came
from the Paris Peace Conference
have become interesting to
historians in their own right.
And have assumed more of a
prominence in the historical
literature. I think also what
interests me about that period
is the fact that the peacemaking
process then was seen as being
flawed, and one in which, from
which lessons had to be learned.
And much of the 20th century has
been taken up with, certainly at
the end of major conflicts,
making sure they don't repeat
the mistakes that, that were
made at the Paris Peace
Conference. So we learn a lot
about the culture of making
peace, of how to treat, how a
victorious power, or group of
powers, should treat their,
their former enemies, the
defeated powers. And the kind of
problems that can arise from
that process, and especially if
you want to have a, take a very
punitive approach to, to the
peacemaking process as seen to
be the case, in 1919. And I
think another thing that's
interesting about this period is
that, there're some wonderful
personalities, people like David
Lloyd George, people like
Woodrow Wilson, they're larger
than life politicians and the
first really modern
international statesman. And
their legacy still looms large
over the international arena. So
I think it's a combination of
personalities, the significance
of what was going on
diplomatically. It was an
innovative period. People were
thinking about different ways
that countries could relate to
each other, to avoid war, to try
and sort of develop a spirit of
internationalism, collective
security, and it was the era,
the beginning of the League of
Nations, and that all stemmed
from the Paris Peace Conference.
And I think we forget that the
Paris Peace Conference was the
largest peace conference that
had ever been, and has ever been
since. It was bigger than the
Vienna conference, the Congress
of Vienna, in 1815, and so the
world and his wife were there.
So it's a really good snapshot
of the dynamics and the issues
that underpin the international
system at the, really, the end
of the 19th century, the
beginning of the of the 20th
century.
Dave: Well, that's a very good
explanation. One of the things
that I wanted to pick up on
there as well, how you talked
about, and I think it's
universally accepted that the
Paris Peace Conference in
particular was, particularly
very flawed. Do you think that,
I mean, this is just my own kind
of, like, personal kind of
thoughts on it. But do you think
that part of the reason why it
was so flawed was perhaps
because there was a lack of
precedent, given the scale of
the war that had gone before
that period?
Gaynor: Yes, I think there's a
lot to that. I think everybody
underestimated the enormity of
what had happened, and also the
need to come up with a
completely new way, ideally, a
new way of states interacting
with each other quickly. And
also for people to learn how to
use that and use that
effectively. You know, it's a
big ask to expect people to kind
of unlearn a lot of their
cultural assumptions that have
been, you know, sort of embedded
in their minds for 50 or 60
years, and then suddenly think
in a different way about
international relations. Yes.
Dave: Yeah. I mean, that's,
that's really interesting to me
and stuff. And I mean, I think
particularly with the Paris
Peace Conference, I mean, it's,
it's well studied, not just at
undergraduate and postgraduate
level, but also at A Level, even
GCSE levels.
Gaynor: Yes.
Dave: Particularly with a focus
on, on Versailles. And I
suppose, with, with regards to
that, Versailles as well. I
mean, I remember from my own,
again, drawing on my own
personal experience of studying
history at GCSE, A Level, and
even at degree level. All the
emphasis, perhaps
understandably, was almost
explicitly on Versailles, rather
than looking at the other
treaties, Saint-Germain, Sèvres,
and Lausanne, etc, etc. And I
suppose, on an obvious level,
that that's because it was the
focus on Germany, the
reparations that Germany had to
pay. Do you think that the over
emphasis on Versailles compared
with a lot of the other treaties
is, is that problematic from a
historiographical kind of
perspective? Or is it, or do you
think that the other treaties
are kind of given more of a, an
airing, I suppose, really
within, within historical
debate?
Gaynor: I think certainly my
experience of learning about the
Treaty of Versailles was very
similar to yours. You know, at O
level, A level. First thing I
learned, perhaps as an
undergraduate, was a lecture on
this and, and, of course, the
overriding message is, this is
important. And you know, and I
think you're quite right when
you say that it's linked to what
we call the German Question, and
also the way, very often, we
think of the German Question as
being an important cause, not
just the First World War, but of
the Second World War as well. So
looking at the rise of Hitler,
and Hitler, of course, is a
perennially popular topic/person
to study even, even today. But I
think, and this, I saw this a
lot, actually, with the
centenary of the Paris Peace
Conference a few years ago.
There were a number of events
that were staged there, that the
historiography has actually
moved on a lot, and I think
rightly so. Certainly you will
still get people who will talk
about the German Question.
They'll talk about the legacy of
what we call the Fisher thesis,
which looks at ways of
connecting events in German
history and looking at areas of
continuity there. But I think
rightly so, more emphasis now is
based on looking at the other
treaties that were signed in
Paris. And I certainly try and
bring that to bear with my
teaching of this material now
with my students. And sometimes
people say to me, okay, there
were four peace treaties signed.
Which do you think, then, was
the most important if it wasn't
the Versailles settlement? And I
must admit, I tend to talk
mostly about the Sèvres Treaty,
which was with the Ottoman
Empire, modern day Turkey, and
it was the only treaty that was
renegotiated. The other treaties
were not, and it helped to give
shape to the modern state of
Turkey, which, of course, is
still in existence today. In a
way that the Versailles
settlement, really, in lots of
ways, died with Hitler's death
in 1945. Sort of significance of
that in terms of politics,
diplomacy, its connection with
the great powers the end of the
First World War. So if you want
a kind of longer term legacy,
then I would put you to the
Sèvres treaty. But, but also we
forget that the treaties that
dealt with Eastern Europe, the
treaties of Trianon and Neuilly
also were highly controversial
to particularly to the, to the
inhabitants of the countries
that were affected by them, and
have created a lot of
instability in Eastern Europe,
which really has taken most of
the 20th century to calm down.
Arguably, if you talk to
scholars of international
history from, say, Hungary or
Czechoslovakia today, they will
say that, you know, there's
still the legacy of the
resentment of those treaties. So
if you want to see a peace
treaty and to view a peace
treaty in terms of its, the
extent to which people think
it's controversial, then those
peace settlements that were
signed in 1919 deliver on that
still. But one would hope that
most people would want to look
at those treaties in a more
positive way, in which case the
emergence of the modern state of
Turkey, which is not to say
that, you know, you're kind of
making a qualitative assessment
about the regime that's in power
there, or anything, but in terms
of legacy. I think the, it
certainly reshaped, and it
didn't just create the state of
Turkey, but it reshaped the
Middle East as well. So the
Ottoman Empire was something
that had been on its last legs,
apparently for well over 100
years, by 1919 and it gave way
to actually one of the most,
arguably more progressive
results of the peace settlement.
Dave: Oh there's some really
interesting insights there. Kind
of moving on from that, really,
I'd like to learn a bit more
about how diplomacy, you know,
throughout the 20th century,
kind of moving on from the Paris
Peace Conference, you know, the
interwar period, the post Second
World War period. How as a
practice, or how it, how
diplomacy is practiced. How do
you feel that it's evolved? Over
the course of the 20th century?
Gaynor: It's evolved! Oh,
goodness. Well, there have been,
been a number of initiatives
that, and we've just been
talking about one of them, which
is the, the diplomacy
surrounding the Paris Peace
Conference, and the, the desire
to move away from the old
diplomacy, which is the old
great power 19th century
diplomacy. Very secretive, very
elitist, not very open,
transparent. And that was
considered to create a climate
of secrecy, which had been an
important course of the war in
1914, and the idea was to
replace that with something
rather open, more democratic,
much more involving things like
public opinion and I mentioned
collective security a moment
ago. That was very much the
basis of the League of Nations,
and indeed, the basis of modern
organisations today, like NATO.
Where collective security works
on the basis that if you're a
member of the organisation and
you're attacked, then, in
theory, all of the other member
nations will come to your
assistance. And, of course, in
practice, I mean, it's, it's
unlikely, on the ground, to
happen, but potentially could,
and that's the idea behind it,
is, it's a deterrent, you know.
If we, that's one of the reasons
why, you know, you've got the
situation now with the, in the
Ukraine, where, if Ukraine was a
member of NATO, then in theory,
you know, collective security,
then all member states would be
coming to the assistance of the
Ukraine. It's interesting that
in de facto, that's probably
what's happening. But it's not
being done under the banner of
NATO. So that's, but, that's to
do with, that's fudging of
international law. But in terms
of, what else could you say
about developments? I think
technology is the other thing
that's, that's hugely changed
diplomacy in the 20th century. I
mean, obviously the beginning of
the 20th century, they had
telephones, they had telegrams
and letters, obviously postal
communication. But these days,
where communication, for all of
us is instantaneous, and you
have websites, emails, and the
like. That's transformed the
way, the speed with which we
know about events. The fact that
we even don't necessarily have
to be involved in diplomacy, but
if we say, tune into the news,
we can watch live streams of
anywhere in the world because of
computer technology. It's
interesting, though, because,
well, we all know, don't we that
the technology can be a bit of a
double edged sword. And in terms
of the conduct of diplomacy, one
of the concerns is, how do we
keep an archive of our
diplomatic, you know, sort of
life, if you like, when
technology is evolving so much.
Because what do we do if we want
to refer back to some papers
that were on a piece of software
that's now defunct? Can we not
do this anymore? And so there is
a kind of strange, somewhere in
the bowels of the Foreign
Office, some sort of room where
they keep a load of old
computers so they can keep them,
so that these things can be
referred back to. But the other
thing, of course, is as we
again, we know this from our own
lives, the way email has,
proliferates, and our inboxes
are going all the time and so
on. And of course, we all have
this issue of, what do we keep?
And what do we delete?
Dave: Yeah.
Gaynor: And it's the same if
you're a diplomat in the field
or you're the Foreign Secretary.
What do you keep? What do you
delete? And of course, how you
answer that question is going to
determine the archive of the
future. And who's to know, that
somebody thinks, something you
may have thought was
unimportant, or you thought
that's just a duplicate of
something and deleted it, could
be, could be of huge interest to
somebody else. And tough, you
know, you've kind of got to go
with, with that thing. So what
we're concerned about is how we
will be able to research things,
particularly when the only thing
is an electronic footprint and
it's, it's kind of a plea,
really, in lots of ways, for
going back to the old days when
minutes, letters, were
handwritten. And you had a hard
copy, or things were typed, you
had a hard copy. And they could
be duplicated and squirreled
away. And as we know from
looking at the material for the
Paris Peace Conference, you can
end up with a lot of duplicates,
but at least there's no danger
of us not having an original of
any kind. So those are the kinds
of things that, that we face.
Technology is wonderful, as we
all know, and when it works
well, it's fantastic, but it's
not without its, its downsides,
particularly those of us, I
think, who are interested in
researching the history of any
organisation.
Dave: Yeah. I mean, that's,
that's really interesting, that
kind of how diplomacy has
evolved is, to a large extent,
dictated by the technologies
available at the time as well.
Dave: One of the things that I
wanted to kind of explore as
Gaynor: Yes.
well, more generally, is, is
that, you know, as you've talked
there about how diplomacy has
evolved during the course of the
20th century and into the 21st
century, beyond that, is kind
of, I mean, from my view, it
almost seems to be not so much a
battle, but kind of like the
relationship between diplomacy
as a process, but also diplomacy
as an embodiment of the
qualities of the individual
diplomat themselves. And you
mentioned at the start the
conversation going back to
Paris, you know, the great
figures like David Lloyd George.
Do you think that as that
evolution has taken place, is
that, there's more of a focus on
a process and less on, people
are less concerned with the
personality, in defining the
success of diplomatic solutions
and peacemaking processes that
are reached?
Gaynor: I think so. I think
there is probably more of an
emphasis on process. Having said
that in the modern era, you do
get the emergence of some very
large personalities. People like
Henry Kissinger, for example,
become, you know, international
celebrity diplomats. You know, I
mean, he's really, he's, he's
exceptional in many ways. But I
think, yes, the process is,
becomes, becomes studied. And I
think part of that is because,
and again, it goes back to the
consequences of the First World
War and the Paris Peace
Conference, and so on. Is one of
the big questions, of course, in
1918/1919, was, how did that war
happen? And how can we prevent
that happening again? And it led
to the evolution of the modern
day University discipline of
international relations, and
that's very much a social
science. And social sciences are
based on looking for commonality
of patterns of behavior and
looking at ways in which, if you
apply a certain sort of, set of
assumptions or a certain pattern
to, maybe a conflict in the 20th
century, you will come up with a
certain set of results. I think
that's one of the reasons why
it's evolved the way it has. I
think there is also, I think,
the idea that diplomacy can't be
left to chance. It can't be left
to well intentioned people who
may or may not have the
intellectual firepower, the
brief, the opportunity to be
able to come up with a solution
to a problem. So having a kind
of group of people who are
experts, maybe in international
law or experts in international
commerce, all of which would
have a diplomatic dimension and
international dimension to them,
can help come together to kind
of look at ways of solving
problems. So people like David
Lloyd George were very much of
their era and, and he would have
absolutely hated, in fact, he
did hate, having anybody tell
him, you know, come up and say
to him, you know, you did
realise that you should perhaps
have done it that way instead of
that way? You know, there was,
there are these larger than life
kind of figures, which, you
know, I think there is, and I
think it's all part of the way
in which diplomacy has become
professionalised as well, not
just for people like,
international statesmen, like
Wilson and Lloyd George, but,
you know, I think for the modern
day diplomats. And they're
trained, and I think most people
would regard that as being a
good thing.
Dave: Yeah.
Gaynor: Because you don't get
that random. And I was reading
earlier today, actually, on the
train coming over, about a 19th
century diplomat, and he annoyed
the Foreign Office to no end
because he was completely
incompetent. Because he was the
son of some influential person
in the House of Lords, they
couldn't really get rid of him.
Dave: Yeah.
Gaynor: And so what do you do
with someone like that? And for
people like that, that's why
they have entrance exams. That's
why you've got to pass your
training, and get, you know,
accrue so many levels of
experience before you can be
promoted, before you'd be let
loose in some major embassy. I
know from talking to some of the
officials, modern day officials,
they said, well, you know, how
did, how did they decide where
to send you first? And they
said, well, put it this way,
would, they wouldn't send you to
somewhere, you know, really
sensitive. They'd send you,
because I remember them saying
that they send you to somewhere
like Brussels or the Hague or
Norway or somewhere like that,
where you're not going to easily
offend them, you know. So if you
do louse it up, then you're not
going to cause a war because of
that. But it is about training,
professionalisation. And, yeah,
I think that answered your
question?
Dave: Yeah. And, and, obviously,
as a byproduct of that
professionalisation as well, I
guess there's, there's less room
for incompetence, but also less
room for Mavericks as well?
Gaynor: Yeah, yeah, yeah. I
mean, that's another thing about
it. I mean, in a sense,
diplomacy is, is less colorful,
potentially, because there is a,
you meet a lot of modern day
diplomats. They're all extremely
charming, you know, ladies and
gentlemen, but there is a kind
of cookie cutterness, to them, a
little bit, you know. You can
see them as being very similar
to one another, but then, you
know, and you they could also
see that as being a continuity
of approach in the way they
conduct themselves around the
world.
Dave: Yeah, no, that's that's
really interesting. And I
suppose, you know, to kind of
like lead on from that as well,
about how not just diplomacy has
changed, but diplomats have
changed, and how diplomats are
trained. I suppose, one of the
things as well that, again,
going back to how we were taught
at GCSE level, A Level and
undergraduate level as well, was
the diplomatic approach of
appeasement. During the, in the
post First World War period and
the ultimate failure of
appeasement. But kind of like,
if we have a look at what's
going on today with Russia and
the Ukraine and you know, NATO's
kind of softly, softly tentative
kind of approach with regards to
how they deal with with Russia
and the problem with Ukraine. To
kind of use that as a case
study, but you can obviously
feel free to elaborate even
more. Diplomats who are kind of
like, looking at today's
international situations, what
lessons could or should they be
learning from mistakes made in
the past, really, in terms of
how you deal with an aggressor
in inverted commas.
Gaynor: Gosh, so, I mean, in
lots of ways, that's a $64,000
question that, that all
diplomats want to know the
answer to. Because, I mean, one
of the things we always say,
isn't it, why do we study the
past? It's so we can learn from
for modern day, modern day
purposes. I think that it's to
do with, again, to do with
process. I think very often it's
also to do with the way in
which, it's the extent to which
a process such as sanctions,
say, thinking about Mr. Putin,
can be used. That's a process.
But also dealing with an
individual who may be a
maverick, or maybe even more so,
maybe even mentally ill or, or
worse.
Dave: Yeah.
Gaynor: I think it's got to be a
mixture of the application of
process, and also trying to get
some kind of personal dialogue
going with that individual or
that regime. One of the most
interesting developments, I
think, in the, the 20th century
diplomats, diplomatic history is
the, is the evolution of summit
diplomacy. Where you know, you'd
have, the stakes couldn't be
higher. Cold War, there's the
United States and the Soviet
Union, armed to the teeth with
nuclear weapons. Is it
Armageddon? And what do they do?
The two leaders of the two
countries and their
representatives will sit in a
room like this and chat and see,
can we do something to
de-escalate this? And that's as
much a process, because
obviously there will be people
who've researched positions, all
the expert advisors will be
there, the lawyers will be
there, etc, etc. But at the end
of the day, it can boil down to
the personal chemistry, or lack
of personal chemistry, between
you and the person you're
talking to. And the classic
example the 20th century is
Margaret Thatcher and Mikhail
Gorbachev.
Dave: Absolutely.
Gaynor: You know. “He is a
person I can do business with”,
she famously said, so that can,
that can work. And of course,
there are famous examples where
people have spectacularly
misjudged a person. And the
classic one, of course, is
Neville Chamberlain's dealing
with Hitler. And it's
interesting, in his case, the
way that misjudgment shaped his
historical reputation, and still
does.
Dave: Yep.
Gaynor: We were talking earlier
about the Treaty of Versailles
being one of the things that we
all learn about, we all know
about. You know, I spend a lot
of time talking about Neville
Chamberlain and saying, you
know, he wasn't as big a fool as
a lot of people perhaps still
think he is. You know, it's
interesting how historical
reputation can become very
entrenched.
Dave: Yeah.
Gaynor: And that kind of way,
and also people's thinking
become become very entrenched.
But what is difficult is, is,
how do you deal with someone who
won't meet with you? I mean, is
Mr. Putin prepared to meet with
politicians from the West? I
doubt it. So that way you've got
to apply other indirect tactics,
and unfortunately, it tends to
have the effect of harming the
innocent population of the
country. So applying sanctions
in Russia means lots of people
go hungry.
Dave: Absolutely. No, it's a
really interesting question. A
lot of food for thought there as
well, particularly with what's,
what's going on at the moment.
Gaynor: Yes.
Dave: Between Russia and
Ukraine. To go back a century
ago, again, back to the Paris
Peace Conference. Obviously, we
worked together. British Online
Archives and youself worked to
create a collection that we have
which looks at the Paris Peace
Conference. Paris Peace
Conference and Beyond 1919–1939.
Very interesting collection that
we did put together. I mean, I
remember having conversations
with yourself going back to 2016
to see how we can, we can make
this achievable with the
centenary coming up. And, you
know, we managed to do it. We
managed to get it published in
2019, through a lot of blood,
sweat, maybe not so many tears,
thankfully.
Dave: But a lot of hard work
there. And I suppose you know,
Gaynor: No, no tears.
it required a lot of visits down
to The National Archives.
Because I think one of the
challenges that we had as well
is that, although pretty much
all of the files were kept
within the Foreign Office files
down there as well is that, you
know, I probably had this naive
perception that there would be
dedicated sections that, of
archival documentation, that
related to Versailles or Sèvres
or Neuilly or Trianon, etc, etc.
And it just didn't work like
that. And, you know, it's, there
were a lot of challenges there,
really. And I suppose, you know,
kind of like casting my mind
back to that 2016/2017 period
when we went down there and
stuff. And, and obviously, you
know, we relied upon your kind
of experience with working with
those files, in the, in the
past. For a student who's going
down there, for example,
obviously they can, they can
access the content online, on
British Online Archives. But you
know, for, for a student, for
the challenges, to actually go
down there for the first time to
try and find this information. I
mean, how, how do you make head
nor tail of it? Because it's,
even if you had, like, a bound
volume, and they have all these
peace files, you'll have
correspondence that relates to
reparations to do with Germany
in the next page, or to be, to
do with the Austro Hungarian
empire and things like that. How
do you kind of make sense of it,
for a first time student and
stuff, you know, pre kind of
online world and stuff. How, how
on earth would you be able to
make head nor tail of it all?
Gaynor: You need to do two
things. I think one thing you
need to do is, to start
thinking, it sounds a bit
strange, but trying to think in
the same way that the people who
put together the archive,
because once you can kind of get
into their mindset about the way
they organise papers, suddenly
it becomes obvious how they
organised papers. And that's
something that, that can be a
very long process. And I take
point entirely that not
everybody's got a lot of time,
and also, can be deeply
frustrating, when you feel as
though, I expected it to be on
this and it's not on that, in
the next folder. I think the
other thing though, is that most
people, and it's not just true
at the collection that we worked
at, would not come to looking at
the papers until they'd really
immerse themselves in the
secondary literature on the
subject. And one of the things
you do, in doing that is
identify areas, questions, that
are relating to what you're
interested in, or which perhaps
are thrown up by the actual
secondary literature. So you
don't normally go into looking
at an archive like that
completely. You know, well,
here's, there's, there it is,
over there, have a look. What
about this, this? That would be,
I mean, if anyone, any of us,
did that, you would be at a
loss.
Dave: Yeah.
Gaynor: You don't have to be,
you know, like a, you know,
rookie researcher to be in that
position. The fact that I used
it before was useful experience
for me to be able to help advise
you guys on what to choose. I
think the other thing that you
would do is, obviously use the
catalog, and you would go with,
I always say this to my
students, go to The National
Archive with two or three
references, even if it's just
random things and they're not
connected. It's a way in, you
know, it's a bit like trying to
find your way around Leeds, as I
did earlier, where somebody
said, here's three street names,
you know, and if you can
navigate between those, you'll
find where you need to be going.
And it was a bit like that. So
it is, it is a bit of a kind of,
there's all sorts of weird
metaphors you can look at like a
puzzle.
Dave: Yeah.
Gaynor: A map and all that kind
of thing. But that is, that is
the way you would, you would
navigate it. And also, another
thing is that most, a
collection, like, that's a major
collection, you're not very the
first person who's using it in
all likelihood. And see how
other people have navigated it.
Dave: Yeah.
Gaynor: You can see it from
their work, or or just talk to
them, you know. I'm thinking of
going to use, you know, FO,
whatever it is in The National
Archive. Have you got any tips?
I mean, people ask me to do
that. And I said, yeah, whatever
you do, you know, if you're
looking at X, you're going to
have to do a lot of microfilm
reading, or whatever. And so
that's the way that you, that
you would approach it. Yes, a
lot of that material is
thematic, I seem to remember,
rather than, as you were saying,
wouldn't it be nice if, there's
all the stuff on one.
Gaynor: One treaty and was, and
so on. It didn't quite work like
Dave: Yeah.
that. But I must admit, I did
find it, I had to be very
disciplined, because I kept
finding things that, you know,
little rabbit holes that I kept,
was very tempted to go down. You
think, oh, I've just got 20
minutes before we break for
lunch. I'll just have a quick
look at that. And so you do find
lots of cross references to
other things, which I think is
one of the richnesses of that
particular collection. Because
whoever had put it together had,
had understood, I think, the
complexity and the vastness of
what was being discussed at that
Peace Conference.
Dave: Yeah.
Gaynor: Really did understand,
even if it was just from an
administrative perspective. So
it's an extremely useful
resource. And obviously I was
very pleased that it was
digitised.
Dave: Yeah. And just what you
were saying there has kind of
like, touched upon a memory that
I had as well, is that we had
all these nuggets and gems of
really good, insightful archival
content, which gave really good
insights to each of the various
treaties that were signed at the
time. But one of the things, as
well, that you were particularly
good at, as well, as someone
who'd already viewed this
content before and was well
versed in it, is the amount of
ruthlessness that's needed in
order to decide whether or not a
particular piece file is going
to be good for this. I remember,
there was a few occasions
myself, thinking oh this looks
really interesting. You said,
no, no, it's not. I said why
not? You said because it's just,
it's not, it's not relevant.
It's not relevant. Okay, well,
I'll move on to the next one and
stuff. But, I mean, I, we did
have to be ruthless, really, to
a large extent, didn't we?
Gaynor: Yes, and ruthless and
selective and, and also, you
know, you realise that you have
got an infinite amount of money
to do this thing. And also,
thinking about what we were
trying to do in capturing the
archive, you know, we wanted
people to have this collection
that highlighted the four
treaties. And, you know, I was
talking about rabbit holes. So
there are, there are 1000s of
them in there, you know, you
could, you could lose yourself.
Dave: It's so easy to get lost
in there.
Gaynor: I mean, we did. And oh!
Just look at that, and think of
that, and, and, so on. So you
know you have to be, you do have
to be quite, you do have to be
quite ruthless. And I think also
it's knowing the context of some
of the material, you think, some
of that, that I know was a dead
end. So why do we need to go
down it? You know, at the end of
the day? So somebody may have
thought it was interesting in
April 1918, but we know that it
didn't go anywhere. So
obviously, if people want to go
down that rabbit hole
themselves, then they can go to
Kew and do that. But given what
we were trying to do, we wanted
something that would be
coherent. And as we did, show
links to other subsequent
events. I mean, the Locarno
material that we added, you
know, I think was very valuable,
and the fact that we had some
good, good stuff on the League
of Nations as well, through the
Robert Cecil papers. I mean,
complete self indulgence on my
part, because those topics are
those which are very close to my
heart academically. But I think
that, I think there were good
academic reasons for them being
included.
Dave: Absolutely. Well, I mean,
I think that ties it all quite
nicely. I suppose, really, we've
got a great collection there
that many students at the
University of Kent, as well, The
University of Kent, already have
access, to this content as well.
Gaynor: Yes. Yes, they do.
Dave: We've already seen, really
good evidence of it that, you
know, it's generating popularity
among universities and libraries
across many parts of the world,
as well. So you know, we know
that the the significance is, is
there really? So, so, yeah, all
it's probably left to say is
thank you very much for your
time, and look forward to
speaking again soon, hopefully.
Gaynor: Yes, thanks a lot.
Thanks.
Dave: Thank you very much. Bye.
Gaynor: Okay.
Outro: Thank you for listening
to Talking History with British
Online Archives, where we
discuss the captivating stories
of the past with the leading
experts of today. We hope you
enjoyed this episode and learned
something new. If you have any
questions or comments, feel free
to reach out to us on our social
media platforms, search for
British Online Archives on
Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and
LinkedIn. Alternatively, you can
email us at
info@britishonlinearchives.co.uk.
If you want to learn more about
the historical collections
discussed in this episode,
please visit our website at
microform.digital/boa, where you
can find more than four million
records covering over one
thousand years of world history.
Don't forget to subscribe to our
podcast and leave us a review on
your favorite podcast app. This
helps us reach more history
enthusiasts like yourself. We'll
be back soon with another
fascinating tale from the annals
of history. Until then, keep
talking history.